Author
Topic: 5Dc a good option? (Read 7539 times)

I currently have a Canon 450D and I have been looking at going full frame by buying a used 5D Mark ii in time for a wedding in June, but as I have a low budget of around £900, I was wondering if I might be better off with a 5Dc for around £400.

I know my 450D is a newer camera with a DIGIC III processor and the 5Dc has a DIGIC II processor, but would going back to an older processor matter? Other disadvantages of the 5dc is a small screen, no sensor cleaning and well I think it’s just those three things. With the 5Dc being full frame the ISO and image quality will be much better than the 450D, am I right?

Is there a big difference in image quality between the 5Dc and 5D MKII?

I do understand that the 5DMark ii is again better than the 5Dc, but I am trying to save money. I am basically asking is going from the 450D to a 5Dc a good option?

canon rumors FORUM

You're never really better off by choosing a 5Dc over a 5D2. If you are doing the wedding for money, why don't you get the 5D2, shoot the wedding, then keep shooting more weddings after that, for money? You'll pay it off in no time.

Be careful going full frame: there are hidden costs there as these cameras demand a lot more of your glass. I would suggest going for a 7D if you're on a budget. It's a great camera and you can tap into APS-C glass as well as full frame.

I just had the same thought yesterday checking different dxomark results for different camera-lens-combos. My observation: the 18MPix sensor of a 7D gives you just a few megapixels more USEABLE resolution than a 40D. This supports my (unscientific but well founded) observation that the sharpness perception of my 40D doesn't quite differ from that with my 600D with good lenses: 24mm f/2.8, 40mm f/2.8, 100mm f/2.0 etc.

dxomark results support the same for FF cameras: With a 5Dii you will not gain twice the resolution of a 5Dclassic but perhaps 10 or 20 percent ... except with a 70-200 f/2.8 ii ...

A 5D classic would be interesting just for me at 600 Euro from a dealer (1 year warranty) and be compatible with my stock of BP-511 batteries. 12 Mpixel Raw files would be very handy and sufficient for my purposes.

On the other hand: No video, a moderate LCD are drawbacks to me. And video support might be of interest for me. And there is the sRAW mode to decrease the stored MPixel count to keep files smaller (never tested it but it should be the case).

Wanted to share my thoughts because I am in the same decision process. But there is a good chance that I will wait one or two years ... APS-C is so good compared to what I see from the film slides I reproduced the last days ...

the 5Dc is severely hampered in low light situations. the usable ISO caps around 1600 but. the Mrk2 you can push to 3200 or slightly more if absolutely necessary.

i own both and shoot weddings. during ceremonies i try not to use the 5Dc at all...the Mrk2 is just so much better in those situations. in daylight i use both simultaneously. at receptions i favor the Mrk2 but with my flash and room strobe the 5Dc does fine.

at this point in camera evolution i would not waste any money at all on a 5Dc.

At Building Panoramics we use both Mk1 and 2. I prefer the mk1. Why ? Data at 100 ISO. But then we only shoot commercially at 100 ISO. LCD is fine for lighting and exposure (histogram) when you're used to it but I really truffle if going from the much much better mk2 screen.

On an A1 size print ( 34x23" ?) you really have to peer close at the print to see the difference between 13 and 21 mp, which is after all only a 14% increase in resolution but a whole heap of increas in file size.

The mk2 probably is a little better between 800 and 1600 ISO. Wouldnt touch 3200 on mk2.

Guess it comes down to money. Mk1 is better value IMO. Our battered mk1 is now basically worthless so I guess we'll never sell it !!

And there is the sRAW mode to decrease the stored MPixel count to keep files smaller (never tested it but it should be the case).

I shoot SRAW1 all the time on the 5DII, and MRAW on the 7D. This gives an effective resolution on each camera of about 10 Mega pixels, sufficient for my needs. Processing these files does however still require significantly more computer grunt than did the 10 Mega pixel files from my previous 40D.

Quality wise it's fine and I believe grouping of pixels in this way helps a little in the way of built-in noise reduction.

the 5Dc is severely hampered in low light situations. the usable ISO caps around 1600 but. the Mrk2 you can push to 3200 or slightly more if absolutely necessary.

i own both and shoot weddings. during ceremonies i try not to use the 5Dc at all...the Mrk2 is just so much better in those situations. in daylight i use both simultaneously. at receptions i favor the Mrk2 but with my flash and room strobe the 5Dc does fine.

at this point in camera evolution i would not waste any money at all on a 5Dc.

Thats why i didnt like the 5dII. It didnt give me that much better IQ at 3200 that everyone hyped about... It was even a more ugly noise with more banding etc. Its much overrated...

The original 5D is a wonderful camera. If it seems less than stellar, it's only in comparison to its successors.

It's important to understand what its successors offer that it doesn't. And, if nothing that's been added is of any consequence to you, then there's nothing to be gained from the new bodies.

First is resolution. But, if your printer sits on your desktop -- that is, unless it takes ink by the gallon and paper by the yard -- then you'll never be able to tell the difference in a print. (Of course, if you crop heavily, you might need more resolution.)

Next is high ISO noise performance...but, again, this is largely determined by print size. If all you're doing is 12" x 16" and smaller prints, you can really push the ISO even on the original 5D and you'll be just fine. It's only at the larger print sizes that the high ISO noise starts to fall apart.

Then there's autofocus. It's barely adequate on the original 5D and not much better on the 5DII. The 5DIII has the second-best autofocus of any camera ever made, only barely behind the 1Dx. If autofocus at all matters to you, that's plenty of a determinant right there.

Close on the heels of autofocus is frame rate and buffer size. It sucks on the 5D, it isn't too terrible on the 5DII, and it's plenty for all but the SI crowd on the 5DIII. Indeed, put the 5DIII's autofocus and shooting speed together with its high ISO performance and image quality and the rest, and it's probably Canon's #3 sports camera of all time, second only to the 1Dx and the 1DIV.

And last is ergonomics, especially including things like the LCD screen and buttons and all that stuff. There's no question but that there's been a very steady improvement, significant bordering on dramatic...but it's not like there's anything horridly worng with the 5D. It'll get the job done just fine, so long as you know its quirks and how to live with them.

So, yes. The original 5D isn't just a good option; it's a very good option. That the 5DII and 5DIII are excellent and unbelievably fantastic options doesn't make the original 5D bad; it's still every bit as good as the day it was released, and it was revolutionary and very, very good back then.

I currently have a Canon 450D and I have been looking at going full frame by buying a used 5D Mark ii in time for a wedding in June, but as I have a low budget of around £900, I was wondering if I might be better off with a 5Dc for around £400.

Quote

I do understand that the 5DMark ii is again better than the 5Dc, but I am trying to save money. I am basically asking is going from the 450D to a 5Dc a good option?

I recently got the 5Dc for much the same reason, wanting that FF look for photos that matter (new baby). I'm also on a budget.

It's gonna come down to lenses. If using slower lenses on FF the sharper, more distracting, backgrounds that result may make you wish you went for an option that gave you both the bigger sensor and the faster glass. If you've got, or have already budgeted for, something like a Tamron 28-75 and/or Canon 85 f1.8 / 100 f2 the mk II will be peachy, if you haven't yet got fast glass the cheaper 5Dc and new lenses is the way to go.

The 5Dc is excellent, but has no liveview or AFMA, to big features that might matter to you.It is excellent at high ISO's.FF does not demand a better lens, its the opposite, just check the lens review sites. The MTF is always higher for the same lens on a FF body.

You can also use the DXO tool to compare sharpness of a given lens on different bodies. The 40mm has a 12mpix resolution on a 5Dc, but only 9mpix on a 7D

Play with it, a lens will have more resolution and rate higher on a 5D classic than on any crop body. It gets even better on a 5D MK II or MK III.

canon rumors FORUM

I agree that the 5dc is a great camera. I can't think of anything to add to this thread that hasn't just been mentioned except how much i like the 5dc's simplicity. the menu is one single column. i quick turn of one dial will get it done without all the submenus and settings BS that the newer stuff has.

I would say that unless you live at ISO 3200, and / or crop a ton, the 5Dc is WELL worth the savings. All the peripherals (fps, lcd, video etc) won't impress like the mkII, but the images will. I would say it's very reasonable to use the extra money on glass (shorty 40 and 85 f/1.8 are my personal bargain faves), or to save until you can get a MkIII. And to add on - 1600 ISO raw files are great. I never liked the noise patterns on the MkII.